(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.02.05 2014노1263

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.02.05 2014노1263

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that there was an important exercise in the Gangwon-gu Armed Forces on the date of literacy, the Defendant requested a substitute driver who was in front of the convenience store in the house and requested the substitute driver to pay money to the Gangwon-gu Armed Forces. The Defendant could not respond to the request, and the substitute driver could not respond to the request, and the substitute driver was set up at a certain point in the Gap-gu Olympic Games.

피고인은 차 뒷좌석에서 잠시 잠들었다가, 너무 추워서 깨어나 히터를 켜기 위하여 차 운전석으로 가서, 시동을 켜고 히터를 켠 상태에서 잠시 앉아 있다가 단속되었을 뿐, 술에 취한 상태로 운전한 사실이 없다.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (an order to attend a compliance driving lecture of two years and forty hours under the suspended execution of imprisonment for one year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant, around November 14, 2013, could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and the evidence submitted by the defense counsel alone does not interfere with the recognition of the above facts constituting the crime, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) around 04:44, Giro-ro87, Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, a four-lane; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle was under the influence of the police officer at the time of crackdown; (c) the Defendant’s vehicle was under the influence of the police officer at the time of enforcement; and (d) the Defendant responded to the police officer’s demand for a drinking test without any defense that the police officer had not driven the vehicle immediately after the enforcement; and (d) the evidence submitted by the defense counsel alone does not interfere with the recognition

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2020.12.17 2020노682

-광주지방법원 2018.02.21 2016노4120

-수원지방법원 2015.08.26 2015노2289

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2015.09.11 2015고정326

-서울북부지방법원 2020.07.23 2020고정335